9/11 War Crimes - Alfred L. Webre - June 5th, 2007

Though this talk was broad and covered many topics in a short time, it serves as preview of his presentation to the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, June 22 - 24th. It was recorded at the Knowledge Exchange in New Westminster, BC, Canada on June 5th, 2007.

In Vancouver, Alfred Webre, an international lawyer and expert on US constitutional law will present:

"The International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal: The 9/11 False Flag Operation as a War Crime under International Law."

and will introduce the "9/11 Independent Prosecutor's Act"

synopsis by ALFRED LAMBREMONT WEBRE, JD, MEd

9/11 was a False Flag Operation designed to trigger Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq), to roll-out a Terror-based National Security state-system world-wide, and to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy. In order to prosecute the 9/11 perpetrators under the 9/11 Independent Prosecutors Act, we are calling for the establishment of an International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Jane and John Does for War Crimes under the Geneva Conventions, including Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against Peace. The International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal would be convened under the jurisdiction of the Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal, established in February 2007 as a permanent citizen's Tribunal by The Perdana Global Peace Organization, chaired by Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who is the first prominent world leader to take up the DU radiation issue.

Hi! The design of the International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is to provide a judicial, impartial forum for the evaluation of forensic evidence.

At present, there are several alternative, though not mutually exclusive models of how the WTC Towers fell, in a controlled demolition. While there is compelling evidence for one model over another at this time, the purpose of an impartial forum is to allow evidence to be presented. This includes evidence of traditional chemical means of controlled demolition, as well as more exotic means, as warranted by the forensic evidence. The models of controlled demolition to be explored, thus would include at least: traditional thermite and thermate explosives; Microfusion devices (4th generation nuclear weapons); and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), be they land-based, air-based, or space-based. Correspondence with the USAF Kirtland Base Directed Energy Directorate does not rule out the existence of Directed Energy Weapons in these configurations.

Victronix comments, particularly after the complete explanation set out in the MEDIA ADVISORY, are thus suspect in intent, as they are intended to prejudice the public against the process of fair adjudication in a Citizen;s Tribunal.

Alfred, I expect you are sincere but are wading into an area in which you will meet with great resistance.

Our movement is made up of real people doing real science. It sounds like you haven't read the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where the ideas you are presenting have been refuted repeatedly by scientists. By including "space weapons" in your Tribunal you primarily make our movement look nutty to average Americans. You may not care about that, but since 99% of the rest of us do, you should not claim to represent us. If you cast out the most extreme ideas into the public and claim to represent anyone but tiny minority, you are not being sincere. You can claim you know more than others about space weapons, but you don't have any evidence they were used on 9/11/01, and if you are going to say that they were, or even suggest it, then you need to write up the refutations to the below papers and show that you do. Show us the evidence.

Without a need for evidence, we could claim that space weapons cause almost everything that goes wrong in the world. That's why the scientific method exists. It's easy to say "it could have been" but it's a whole different ballgame to do the work to actually show that it "could have been". Just because technology exists or is hidden by the US military doesn't mean it was used on 9/11/01. Show us the evidence and debate with the researchers. Submit a paper to the Journal and they will publish it. Then someone may respond in their own paper to your claims.

Scientific theories are not 'explored' in an International Tribunal. Evidence which has been carefully gathered and examined closely and tested is presented. You have not been debating and testing this evidence with others involved in 9/11 yet now you claim to represent us to the world. This is big problem.

If you do not identify yourself and your personal stakes in this project, you have no personal accountability for what you say and no accountability for the consequences of your statements, which are repetitive cant without any substance, and assume a lack on integrity on the 9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act which has been ongoing for 18 months.

Identify yourself now, or shut up and withdraw, and go perform your hoaxes on some other project.

Mr. Webre, the evidence for "TV Fakery" is quite strong, and I trust you are aware of it.

I have stated elsewhere at 911 Blogger that even if the evidence for exotic weapons is weak, it is pragmatic and beneficial to consider this evidence because so many in the movement believe it to have merit. There is no need to defensively worry about how this will be perceived--it's not for us to explain how the towers were pulverized, as we know that they were and that it is utterly implauisble that "Al Qaeda" did it. Thus, divisive allegations of disinformation are unnecessary.

However, I think you are missing a very key point--involvement and/or use of mass media organs to sell a false story. Fred at 9/11 Researchers has even offered some video analysis suggesting that the faked broadcasts served to hide what was happening to the towers before they were pulverized.

"The design of the International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is to provide a judicial, impartial forum for the evaluation of forensic evidence.

"At present, there are several alternative, though not mutually exclusive models of how the WTC Towers fell, in a controlled demolition. While there is compelling evidence for one model over another at this time, the purpose of an impartial forum is to allow evidence to be presented. This includes evidence of traditional chemical means of controlled demolition, as well as more exotic means, as warranted by the forensic evidence. The models of controlled demolition to be explored, thus would include at least: traditional thermite and thermate exposives; Microfusion devices (4th generation nuclear weapons); and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), be they land-based, air-based, or space-based. Correspondence with the USAF Kirtland Base Directed Energy Directorate does not rule out the existence of Directed Energy Weapons in these configurations."

Thus we are allowing for alternative models of presentation of evidence. You are so naive and unread that you are unaware of the evidence, for example that a Microfusion device was used in a previous False Flag Operation at the ALFRED P. MURRAGH Building in Oklahoma City. The large explosions at the WTC may be evidence of one of the following:

Microfusion Device
Land-based, Air-Based or Space-based DEW.

This is not an obsession on Space-based DEW. Officially, there are no space-based DEW. There are land-based and air-based DEW, officially. There are officially DEW being now tested and in the pipeline. This does not account for black budget weapons.

This is called allowing a forum for the evidence to be presented.

Your are the one trying to box the above methodology into s space-based DEW, and calling it a hoax. YOU ARE THE FUNCTIONAL HOAXER. Now why don't you go home and do your homework by reading the 50 Page Congressional Memorandum, authored by David Ray Griffin, Leuren Moret and myself.

I find it very interesting that you are acting as a 9/11 Gatekeeper. Well abandon your Gate, Gatekeeper, because the horses are out of the Barn.